Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

which is more hyperbole

which is more legit/better

discuss

https://i.postimg.cc/bGYnH0RG/wdfv.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/bDWLBV6V/wedf.jpg

The feat of chains is better

Hammer heavier than anything. Hmmm. Would it be harder for Superman to lift Mjolnir, than it was for him to break that chain?

sighs

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
which is more hyperbole

which is more legit/better

discuss

https://i.postimg.cc/bGYnH0RG/wdfv.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/bDWLBV6V/wedf.jpg

It's obvious that Thor is more hyperbolic and Supes is a better feat

Lol, why am I not surprised at the lowballing. Thor's feat is better.

Originally posted by JBL
Lol, why am I not surprised at the lowballing. Thor's feat is better.

So according to you, a planet is heavier than a star?

Even if Mjolnir is heavier than a planet it wouldn't compare to snapping chains that haul stars between galaxies, Superman's feat is obviously better.

Originally posted by Stoic
Hammer heavier than anything. Hmmm. Would it be harder for Superman to lift Mjolnir, than it was for him to break that chain?

Anything ever lifted by any living being. Crucial difference.

Originally posted by Diesldude
So according to you, a planet is heavier than a star? It is more than a planets weight mentioned.

But a star is massively heavier than a planet

And characters in Marvel have moved stars.

Originally posted by JBL
And characters in Marvel have moved stars. .........So?The topic was specifically asking which FEAT is more impressive. It has nothing to do with Marvel's characters. Unless you really want making an argument that Thor is stronger than any living being in marvel( Which we all know that it is not true)

It's simple.

Thor's feat is that he is swinging a hammer heavier than a world, heavier than anything that has ever been moved by any living being.

Superman's feat is that he is breaking 'unbreakable' chains which are used to haul stars.

So Superman's is more hyperbole (because they are obviously not unbreakable), and is also better (because the chains are used for hauling stars between galaxies, yet he broke them).

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's simple.

Thor's feat is that he is swinging a hammer heavier than a world, heavier than anything that has ever been moved by any living being.

Superman's feat is that he is breaking 'unbreakable' chains which are used to haul stars.

So Superman's is more hyperbole (because they are obviously not unbreakable), and is also better (because the chains are used for hauling stars between galaxies, yet he broke them).
I disagree, thor's feat is way way more hyperbole. This is why i wanted Alberto define hyperbole. I'm going with embellishment, exaggeration.

We can assume that the chains were never broken by anyone before superman broke them or the guy wouldn't have called them unbreakable.

The hammer had to be forged so it was moved at one point prior, even lifted so that's a big exaggeration, even an outright lie. It's the enchantment that gives Mjolnir it's "weight". The enchantment can make the hammer weigh more than a world for the unworthy, but for thor its as easy as lifting a regular hammer because he's worthy. So it's a regular feat that could have been performed by any worthy being and because of this, its a huge exaggeration to make OKT appear almighty. Much bigger hyperbole than the unbreakable chains.

Well, one could use a non-living thing to lift heavier things. It's merely the heaviest thing ever lifted by a living thing.

A construction worker can lift - using a crane, i.e. a non-living thing - something heavier than any living being has ever moved.

Both are hyperbolic.

Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means

Educate us Saint

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Do people honestly not understand what hyperbole means I was going by exaggerations. Thor being almighty is an exaggeration no? But it can be taken literally. So my bad here.

Originally posted by Sin I AM
Educate us Saint

For those homeschooling their kids:

https://kidskonnect.com/language/hyperbole-examples/



Are the chains unbreakable? That's hyperbole. But their function - being used to haul stars - isn't hyperbole.

The Old King Thor mini is basically beginning to end wank fest feats. Why would you use one of the least concrete ones for comparison?

The answer to the question is that it would be impossible for Superman to lift Mjolnir, whereas he broke what was said to be unbreakable. Therefore the chain wasn't truly unbreakable.